Mawkish1983 wrote:I was taught from an early age to question what I don't understand. I don't understand this story, so I questioned it. I meant no disrespect and apologise if the way in which my posts are read does not match my intention.
So back to the story, what does 'Buddha is fake' mean? Does it mean that Nibbana is unobtainable and, if so, how does anecdotal evidence of reincarnation suggest that Nibbana is obtainable?
Respectfully, I just don't get it.
All that the young monk could see was his elder's suffering, in spite of his wholesome actions, which he performed for the whole of his life.
So in his view the wholesome actions didn't lead to wholesome results.
This directly means(to him) that the law of karma as told by the Buddha doesn't hold good.
It then implies that the noble 8th fold path, which is based on purifying one's conduct by doing wholesome actions, which would then lead to gradual lessening of suffering uptill nibbana doesn't hold good too.
Since now the path doesn't lead to nibbanna (to him), therefore the person who first prescribed it can't have the attributes of a Buddha.
So whoever first declared the path was a "fake Buddha", ie Buddha only in the name, not in conduct & attributes.
I hope this answers your question.
In the "read" is only the "read"..thus should you train yourselves Dhammawheel members. When for you there will be only the "read" in the "read" then, Dhammawheel members, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
You nailed it bodom.